| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
Ali`i Mana`o Nui Lanny Sinkin, Facebook Post 3-12-15… “There might have been a ‘Joint Resolution’, but there was not a ‘Treaty of Annexation’ for the Kingdom of Hawai’i”
Ali`i Mana`o Nui Lanny Sinkin
Ali`i Mana`o Nui Lanny Sinkin posted this on Facebook along with the link to the article just posted here. Excellent points made here, in my view.
“…the actual recorded vote was 52 aye 28 nay and 9 not voting… If there were 89 Senators, the required 2/3 would be 59. If there were 90 Senators, the required 2/3 would be 60. In either case, 52 is not 2/3.
“The United States Constitutional provision on ratification of treaties requires an affirmative vote of 2/3 of Senators present, not 2/3 of those choosing to vote.
“…the joint resolution did not get converted into the equivalent of a treaty by a vote satisfying the numerical requirements of the United States Constitution.“
———————————————————
https://www.facebook.com/lanny.sinkin/posts/10205319393518840:0
Professor Chang’s analysis is clearly superior to what Mr. Conklin offers. In his article http://www.angelfire.com/bi…/TreatyOfAnnexationHawaiiUS.html Kenneth Conklin says: “In July 1897, Congress passed a joint resolution to ratify the Treaty of Annexation. A joint resolution requires only a simple majority in both houses of Congress, but the resolution to adopt the Treaty of Annexation actually passed by 42-21 in the Senate (exactly 2/3) and by 209-91 in the House (more than 2/3). So, in the final analysis, the vote for annexation exceeded the 2/3 that would be required for a treaty, even though it was now called a joint resolution.”
It appears that the actual recorded vote was 52 aye 28 nay and 9 not voting. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/55-2/s329
The total of 89 differs from the official record that there were 90 Senators. If there were 89 Senators, the required 2/3 would be 59. If there were 90 Senators, the required 2/3 would be 60. In either case, 52 is not 2/3. Certainly using Conklin’s report of the count as 42 ayes, the vote fell far short of 2/3. What he refers to as 2/3 is the ratio of Senators voting yes to Senators voting no without counting Senators choosing not to vote.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes…
The United States Constitutional provision on ratification of treaties requires an affirmative vote of 2/3 of Senators present, not 2/3 of those choosing to vote. “[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”
Even assuming Mr. Conklin’s count is correct, 42 voting yes would represent 2/3 if there were only 63 Senators present. There were numerous votes on the Hawaiian issue in which more than 63 Senators actually voted. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes…
With all its other faults legally that Professor Chang so ably identifies, the joint resolution did not get converted into the equivalent of a treaty by a vote satisfying the numerical requirements of the United States Constitution.
Filed under: energies, Hawai’ian Kingdom, new energies Tagged: Kingdom of Hawai’i, Lanny Sinkin, Williamson Chang 
Source: https://kauilapele.wordpress.com/2015/03/12/alii-manao-nui-lanny-sinkin-facebook-post-3-12-15-there-might-have-been-a-joint-resolution-but-there-was-not-a-treaty-of-annexation-for-the-kingdom-of-hawaii/
